User talk:Casey boy

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Missing file information

Hello! And thanks for your upload - but some extra info is necessary.

Sorry for bothering you about this, but it is important to know source of the uploaded files.

Are you the author of image File:Barton Road Community Centre.jpg ?

Or is it copied from some other place (which one?)?

Please, add this info to the file page - something like "I took this photo" or "downloaded from -website link-" or "I took this screeshot of program XYZ".

Doing this would be already very useful.

Licensing - photos

In case that you are the author of the image: Would you agree to open licensing of this image, allowing its use by anyone (similarly to your OSM edits)?

In case where it is a photo you (except relatively rare cases) author can make it available under a specific free license.

Would you be OK with CC0 (it allows use without attribution or any other requirement)?

Or do you prefer to require attribution and some other things using CC-BY-SA-4.0?

If you are the author: Please add {{CC0-self}} to the file page to publish the image under CC0 license.

You can also use {{CC-BY-SA-4.0-self}} to publish under CC-BY-SA-4.0 license.

Once you add missing data - please remove {{Unknown|subcategory=uploader notified March 2022}} from the file page.

Licensing - other images

If it is not a photo situation gets a bit more complicated.

See Drafts/Media file license chart that may help.

note: if you took screenshot of program made by someone else, screenshot of OSM editor with aerial imagery: then licensing of that elements also matter and you are not a sole author.

note: If you downloaded image made by someone else then you are NOT the author.

Note that in cases where photo is a screenshot of some software interface: usually it is needed to handle also copyright of software itself.

Note that in cases where aerial imagery is present: also licensing of an aerial imagery matter.


Feel free to ask for help if you need it - you can do it for example by asking on Talk:Wiki: new topic.

Please ask there if you are not sure what is the proper next step. Especially when you are uploading files that are not your own work or are derivative work (screenshots, composition of images, using aerial imagery etc).

If you are interested in wider discussion about handling licencing at OSM Wiki, see this thread.

--Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Done. Added {{CC0-self}} to description. Casey boy (talk) 09:44, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Tag status vs. proposal status

I noticed you have changed the access tag value "official" to "abandoned" with the reasoning: (Add note on status and change to abandoned to match proposal.). Actually, proposals are not necessarily related to tags in use, and in particular their status does not correlate. A proposal can be abandoned, but the tag can still be "de facto" or "in use" or similar. I reverted the edit to "in use" for the moment. --Dieterdreist (talk) 13:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

It wasn't solely based on the proposal status, the usage of that value has been declining for years (since 2014). But you're right, the usage is probably too much to consider it abandoned - so maybe I was a bit hasty! Casey boy (talk) 10:10, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
The problem with access-tags is that you don't get stats for all of them together, for example foot=official, although it is declining recently, is a different picture from the general "access" tagging (and has 10 times the usage): --Dieterdreist (talk) 11:57, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Access provisions in the United Kingdom - thanks!

I just wanted to see thanks for the edits to to extend its reach beyond England. It was a bit of a mess before, and it's not any more. SomeoneElse (talk) 11:35, 4 May 2023 (UTC)